The decline of the United States

Sadly, this article seems to hit the nail on the head, the US has been declining for some time and now with Trump and Corona at the same time, it’s pretty much doomed so far as remaining a world power.

The hard right who has fed Trump’s ego have only themselves to blame for putting such an imbecile at the helm of this country.


The fall in US influence was visible this week at virtual meetings of world leaders where the main US diplomatic effort was devoted to an abortive attempt to persuade the others to sign a statement referring to the “Wuhan virus”, as part of a campaign to blame China for the coronavirus epidemic. Demonising others as a diversion from one’s own shortcomings is a central feature of President Trump’s political tactics.”


US failure goes far beyond Trump’s toxic political style: American supremacy in the world since the Second World War has been rooted in its unique capacity to get things done internationally by persuasion or by the threat or use of force. But the inability of Washington to respond adequately to Covid-19 shows that this is no longer the case and crystallises a perception that American competence is vanishing.”


Put simply, the US is no longer a country that the rest of the world wants to emulate or, if they do, the emulators tend to be authoritarian nativist demagogues or despots. Their admiration is warmly welcomed: witness Trump’s embrace of the Hindu nationalist Indian prime minister Narendra Modi and his cultivation of the younger generation of tyrants such as Kim Jung-un in North Korea and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Saudi Arabia.”


Nicely formatted post!

In regards to the article extracts, I can say that I feel embarrassed (as a patriotic citizen of my country) to imagine the complete mess that we are making in “diplomacy” with the rest of the world. Secondly. I feel some sadness at my nation’s decline from a position of prominence and leadership in the world. Thirdly, I have concerns about what our decline will eventually do for our economic status in the world.

So, now, at this strange point in history, I am most threatened, beyond all else, by the possibility that T rump will not have been replaced by next January.


and ditto

Cockburn has long been a sharp critic of neoliberalism. I followed your link Hugo and read the whole piece. It hardly seems adequate just to say that we could not possibly have a worse POTUS during this emergency. But Tim, as I too long to see the back of Trump, as I look at the Democrats I’m not encouraged. My conclusion is that Biden is suffering from old age dementia, but worse than that, he remains a rabid Cold War-rior. Personally, if that is who the D’s offer up for our rote endorsement, I will have to decline. Biden has never represented anything that I believe in or could support.

There is something though that is not addressed by Cockburn’s critique: my conclusion is that the integration of Eurasia is ultimately inevitable. For the reasons of logistics, energy, and environmental concerns. This in itself will diminish US influence and “leadership.” The US and ultimately humanity would be much better served by the US recognizing NOW that this is inevitable, rather than pursuing the present course of confrontation, military and economic blockading, and hybrid warfare.

So, there are realities that the US has absolutely no hope of halting, and also the US has hastened its own decline through self-inflicted wounds. Others could probably point to different events or turning points, but to me the seminal event was the US reaction to the collapse of the Soviet Union. GHW Bush during his tenure is recorded as saying “There will be no peace dividend.” And since that time the US has resorted to trying to deepen and broaden its hegemony through military aggression and economic extortion. Nothing exceptional in that; that is the behavior of empire throughout human history.


That was a very thought provoking post Vince.

Thanks Hugh. By finally availing myself of the digital presence of SI/CFI I hoped to find another community that discusses issues and events thoughtfully. Like most (I’m guessing) that participate in online forums I’ve learned by making many mistakes: the false insulation of anonymity; making unsubstantiated claims; superficial reading of other’s posts and messages; getting into pointless pissing matches with trolls.

Here’s another that I just recently recognized and I, along with many others bear responsibility for. During GW Bush’s tenure and the disaster of the Iraq war I considered myself very clever and funny that I could, day after day, come up with ever more humorous wordplay to toss insults at Bush, et al. Lo and behold, Trump descends his escalator and uses that very same rhetorical tactic to demolish all the other R wanna-be’s, and now anyone else that threatens his over-inflated image of himself. Ouch.

Vince, We are going to have an election in November. And in January, the POTUS will be Joe Biden OR we will keep our DOTUS T rump.

Your pop diagnosis of Joe of having dementia is much less founded I think than similar charges for T rump. And your accusation of Joe as “rabid Cold War-rior” makes it sound like you are one of the Bernie Bros, and other Russia-philes who are still spreading the propaganda that it is a hoax that Russia has done nothing to work against the interests of the USA.

Our President NEXT YEAR will be Joe Biden OR our Dictator will be Donald T rump. THAT’S IT. And ANY a-hole who doesn’t vote for Biden is voting by proxy for T rump.

Thus, since you have announced your intention to not vote for Joe, you have simultaneously announced your support of our DOTUS. So that makes you a T rump lover, anyway you want to look at it. I don’t like T rump lovers.

Just to reiterate my standing on Bernie. If he had the backing like he said he would of untold numbers of young people, and the backing of a national revolutionary movement that enabled him to win the Dem Presidential Nomination, I would be gushing with love for Bernie and his prospects to be the next POTUS. But Bernie is not going to acquire 1991 delegates in time for the Convention. So it’s just about time to move on from Bernie.

It’s either Joe or T rump, now. And if you’re not with Joe, you are with T rump.

So Tim, I’m an asshole and a Trump lover. While I won’t categorically deny the first accusation, those that know me would be laughing on the floor right now hearing your second accusation. (That reminds me of a story I heard, an urban parable, in Cleveland, Ohio. While I was representing our company on Thanksgiving eve as our ironworkers inserted tower sections to jack up our tower crane in the middle of an ice storm, it was told to me that the guy standing on the suspended pieces was a legend there; fearless and irreverent, and obviously possessed of a devilish sense of humor. While he was working on the construction of the Cleveland Colosseum, one day he went around to everyone one on the job site (hundreds of men (sorry ladies) and asked simply: “Are you an asshole?” The great overwhelming majority of workers on the site responded in the affirmative, either strongly or reluctantly. When he got to that one guy on the site that everyone acknowledged was the biggest asshole on the project, he categorically denied he was an asshole.)

I’d already surmised looking through many threads, that your abundant presence here is mainly political and unfortunately, blindly partisan. I’ve been paying attention to politics long before the current crop of frontrunners rose to prominence. You do realize of course that the entire political class, both democrat and republican, endorsed the worst failure of US policy in this nation’s history - the approval of the AUMF that enabled the illegal invasion of Iraq? Don’t tell me, like good ol’ Uncle Joe has, that he didn’t expect Bush to actually use it! People the world over (mostly brown-skinned or slanted eye) understand that when the US starts rattling swords it’s time to start building bomb shelters and stockpiling food.

Obama hardly disturbed the trajectory of US policy, though he did try to accomplish some things reminiscent of the Democratic era of the New Deal. That is not the Democratic Party of today. Under Obama’s tenure, another unnecessary assault turned the functioning nation of Libya into a failed state, a battlefield, and a breeding ground of terrorism and death; the joint US/Saudi assault on Yemen, a humanitarian disaster was begun; along with the scheming, corrupt monarchies of the Persian Gulf, the US threw gasoline on the fire of a civil war in Syria, and is now trying to crawl away with its tail between its legs. No, 8 years of Obama, Biden, and Hillary continued what Bush began and there is an arc of destruction and death that stretches from northeast Iraq down through the Levant, and beyond.

If you believe that we can vote our way out of the current criminal and destructive trajectory of US policy you are deluded. I honestly don’t know what the answers are, and I am afraid for our nation, and for all of humanity. I understand with exact, precise clarity just where you are coming from. I’m estranged from my younger brother at this time for these exact same reasons.

Ahem. This forum is moderated. Please review the rules. There is a button at the top of every page. There are valid arguments for and against voting or not, Biden or not, the AUMF, whatever.

If you would like to discuss anything a moderator has said, please do so in the Issues & Complaints Forum. It’s in the rules. (6) Users may express their disagreements with the decisions or actions of Moderators, but disagreements, criticisms and the like may be discussed in the Issues & Complaints Forum ONLY. (You must read the instructions at the top of that Forum before making complaints there). Any such discussions not taking place within the I & C Forum are considered off-topic, and as such are subject to moving, locking or deletion, at the discretion of Moderators.

Possibly the most important paragraph in the rules (3)(f) Generally speaking, inflammatory, hyperbolic or overly emotive rhetoric is the sign of a troll and should be avoided on the CFI Forum. This community exists, first and foremost, to foster inquiry. Inquiry does not flourish in an atmosphere of heated rhetoric, mutual vilification or recrimination. Disagreements should be kept, as much as possible, to the issues at hand and not become overly personalized. To take but one example, pointing out a person’s lack of scientific qualifications when discussing scientific issues is on-point, but referring to someone’s political beliefs is not. Since they risk degenerating into flame wars, abusive forum threads or posts are subject to immediate editing or deletion.


Hello greenfist. At this time I will interpret his caution to mean, now boys play nice, or I’ll shut you down. He is correct though that there are valid arguments on different sides of all those issues. Because I’m new here I won’t say any more on this topic, in this thread, except this: I’ve followed Joe Biden’s career and to me he embodies all that is wrong with the Democratic Party today, and for the record I have voted almost exclusively Democrat throughout my life. (The first election I was old enough to vote was Carter v Ford. I thought Carter a decent honorable man, but that the piranhas in DC would eat him alive, which is what happened. I voted for Ford!) As to Biden’s mental condition, I have personally witnessed several times the descent of loved ones into old age dementia and who am I going to believe, his supporters or my lying eyes? I believe it is a recipe for disaster.

As to the agency or enfranchisement of continued election voting, the scales fell from my eyes after the mid-term election of '06. In that election there was an overwhelming electoral rejection of the Bush administration and the Iraq war, and an overwhelming Democratic sweep. And what happened? Absolutely nothing. Pelosi - “Impeachment is off the table.” Not only that but military budgets keep increasing with the consent of both parties, the wars widen, and the social safety net continues to be eaten alive, and both parties are party to it. I believe these comments to be a continuation and development of the topic that Hugo began, as per the forum rules.

Since Green seems to need an explanation, I’ll do that briefly. I am suggesting nothing about anyone’s criticisms or opinions. I didn’t even name anyone. Re-read post 325131. I am addressing that conclusions about character were drawn hastily and words were used that are widely understood to be crass, vulgar and completely lacking in intellectual rigor.

(3)(f) states that political beliefs have the risk of degenerating. That doesn’t mean they are off limits. It means we should take extra care to keep them from degenerating. Make sure your points are evidence based and stick to issues. Stay away from cheerleading for your favorite politicians or, as we called it in the good old days, mudslinging.

On the topic, I understand your sentiment Vince, but I don’t get the conclusion. If I had to vote between a queen who chopped off people’s heads, and her brother who threw people in the dungeon for 20 years, I’d still vote. I’ve watched my union lose its power because people get upset over one issue one year, and they drop their membership. I worked for 21 years and the only vote I had was to leave. I would never give that up. In the 90’s I would vote locally and State, but I’d put “Mickey Mouse” or something in for President, because I didn’t think it mattered. I stopped doing that when Bush stole the White House using his father’s power.

lausten: For at least six election cycles up until the '06 mid-terms I worked as a volunteer (we got a small stipend) for my county’s board of elections - setting up and tearing down the polling places and machines, checking the machines before the election, and troubleshooting those Diebold pos’s on election day. I did it because I sincerely believed it was important to vote, my employer gave me the latitude to do that, and I felt I was giving back to my community. Voting still has impact and importance at the local level, and possibly the state level. Was it Gilens and Page that recently published a book that used statistical proofs in the best tradition of Chomsky and Hermann that proved that our national government does not do the bidding of the majority of its citizens on almost every important matter?

Like I said in my reply to timb, I honestly don’t know what the answers are. To reinforce your point, consider the boycotting of the Venezuelan elections by the oppositional Right. Didn’t work out for them very well, did it? (also in Bolivia, yes?) If I must defend this position, this is where my head is presently at, and it is not unique to me: if the Democratic Party continues to lose as badly as it has (yes I know HRC won the popular vote - the EC worked exactly as the founders intended for it to work, and it is a continuing flaw) then my hope is that something new and more truly representative will rise from the ashes. You can have at that if you wish, and none of my opinions are set in stone.

In a way my vote for a presidential candidate is of no consequence. Here in eastern Ohio during the last days of the '16 campaign I chauffeured a friend all over the county as he looked for a house he could afford to buy. Everywhere we went there were Trump signs - thousands of them. For Clinton, I counted only 3; that is, as in 1,2,3. I expect the same result here this time around. In '16 I voted for Stein, my wife for HRC. In Ohio Stein got about 5000 votes and Clinton got absolutely demolished. If I had been able to cast a thousand ballots for the D candidate, it would not have made any difference at all.

I trust you saw the thread I opened on the Complaints and Issues forum in order to query you there - as per forum rules - on the reason of your caution? The time stamps should prove that I did so before your follow up cautions above.

Ok. Let’s get something straight. I AM partisan. I am proudly and, imo, completely right to be partisan against what T rump has done and is doing to my country. I am emotional about the suffering he causes. And that emotion is a completely natural and appropriate response. But I accept that I must not try to share my emotions on this forum, by using the short-hand of “inflammatory, hyperbolic or overly emotive rhetoric” because I must abide by the rules of this forum.

So, Vince. In your world, you despise (appropriately so, imo) T rump. Yet you are convinced that the scam line (Biden/dementia) which is just another T rump PARTISAN “swift boat” attack on Biden, is TRUTH. You declare assuredly that Biden has dementia. Your expertise on this topic is that you have personally witnessed several loved ones decline into dementia. I find it odd that your expertise finds no mental/psychiatric issues with T rump. You are not partisan, Vince. You seem to think “partisan” is a dirty word. You seem to be trying to be non-partisan. But you can’t in this situation. By promoting this swift boat attack on Biden, however, you are in effect being VERY partisan on the side of the LIAR.

Or do you not get that T rump is going to continue to be our LIAR DOTUS, if not enough people vote for Biden? DO YOU GET THAT? 4 more years, at least, of T rump making America this great, we cannot afford! We are so great, under his leadership, that our LIAR DOTUS has us in the position of being one of the worst in dealing with COVID-19 even though we had months head start to prepare? We are so great that our LIAR DOTUS has the USA on the possible verge of an economic depression. We are so great that the rest of the world is losing any real respect for our nation. Sure they respect our military and economic might, but they don’t respect what T rump represents. America is NOT BECOMING “GREAT AGAIN”. It is in decline, and much of that is primarily because of this administration.



BTW, Vince. You seem to hate our involvement in wars. But you cite your voting for Ford over Carter, implying that it was wise choice. Under Carter, no shots were fired by our military.

Oh, yeah, I forgot. I am proudly and appropriately partisan, but not “blindly partisan” as you said. My partisan views are imminently supported by reason. I am quite emotional about all of this, but not “blindly” emotional.

You seem to see partisanship and think, oh that’s partisan, it can’t be right. And you have also seem to have concluded that Democracy is not attainable in our current system, hence it is your role to pass on the swift boat attack on Biden, even though it helps the prospect of our LIAR CORRUPT DOTUS remaining in power and advancing his power.

You are supporting the re-election of T rump, whether your personal vote counts or not. Face it.


The choice we have is Biden or T rump.

It is a BIG LIE to pose this as a choice between the lesser of two evils. STOP THE FALSE EUIVALENCIES.

Put simply, it is a choice between a decent man, who has the capacity for empathy and compassion. Who has 8 years of administrative experience under Obama. Who won’t use his position every day (EVERY DAY) to support his own ego at the expense of anything or anybody that gets in the way. Biden will be a decent POTUS who can bring us back from the hole our nation is slipping into.

T rump, otoh, if he continues as DOTUS, will continue to support his own ego, by any means necessary. And he won’t be running for office, anymore, so I expect he will be running for Dictator for more than a mere extra 4 years. He doesn’t know how to be a POTUS, he only knows how to campaign for it. So what else will he do, when he has no election to look forward to?

Which scenario do you want? It’s one or the other.

Wrong analogy. It a choice of one who will cut your head off and the other who will drown you. Pick your poison.
I realize it's hyperbole, but how is that an analogy to the POTUS? So far, our government is only killing people slowly, but locking them up, giving corporations wide berth in exploitation, starving the education system, confusing people with bad science, and okay, a few people are getting shot by law enforcement, but the army has not yet been called out, there are no firing squads, in fact there were 22 death penalties carried out last year.

Tim, first I would direct you to paragraphs 2h and 2g of the forum rules. Your latest comments to me do not seem to adhere to those rules: how do your comments “continue and develop” the topic that Hugo began on this thread?

I don’t know if you are attempting to intimidate me or silence me, or possibly drive me away from this site. I don’t know how the moderator sees it, but I consider your latest comments and your previous outburst to be borderline abusive. I would guess that many of the longtime regulars of this forum are watching quietly and carefully to see how the newbie conducts himself.

In keeping with the intent of the above cited forum rules:

Many wise and thoughtful people down through the ages since the advent of the idea of democracy have concluded that democracy, if it fails, fails along a predictable course. That is, it becomes captured by wealthy, powerful interests. In my opinion that is the sad demise of the US and goes to the heart of the subject of this thread. I cited above the academics Gilens and Page and their analysis that supports this opinion. I arrived at this conclusion not this year or last year, but several decades ago during the tenure of WJ Clinton, wherein the leadership of the Democratic Party decided that if you can’t beat 'me, then join 'em. To compete on a peer level with the GOP in the ever increasingly expensive arena of extended campaigning they would have to avail themselves of the funding doled out by wealthy powerful interests. Of course there are strings attached and quid pro quo.

During the run-up to the '06 midterms I found several studies that were going on in real time that were tracking who was contributing large sums to campaigns, and to whom the money was being directed. The wealthy and the powerful could read the writing on the wall, and what the numbers showed was that, compared to previous election cycles the lion’s share was going to D candidates whereas previously it had been going to R candidates. It wasn’t that those contributors suddenly had a hankering for those policies traditionally championed by Democrats; it was a horse race and they were putting their money on the probable winners, and thereby ensuring their continued influence on the direction of policy. And of course many of those “Democrats” seemed to just crawl out of the walls, unknowns - and those were the “Blue Dogs.” That was what happened here in this federal congressional House district in that election. An unknown announced his D candidacy and was bankrolled by local wealthy interests, won the election, and promptly amassed a record of voting against traditional Democratic initiatives. Of course if the choice is between a phony republican and a true republican, the true republican always wins, and so it was, and our Blue Dog served one term and returned to obscurity.

The long and the short of it is that yes, what we have today in the US is a duopoly - both parties are owned by the same wealthy powerful interests, and do their bidding.

I was all for the impeachment of Trump, until the D party leadership decided on what particular abrogation of the public trust Trump violated. I could hardly believe it when they settled on the Ukraine issue to try to remove him. It was mind-boggling that they’d try to get Trump on something that Joe Biden is on videotape boasting that he had in fact done!

And speaking of Ukraine; I wouldn’t presume to lecture you or anyone else on the facts behind that situation, but I’ll relate what I uncovered in trying to understand what was really going on there. I investigated and researched because, as much as I hate to say it, I believe little of what our government now says, no matter which Party controls the White House. The collapse of the Soviet Union not only sent Russia proper into an economic and social tailspin but all those peripheral nations that had been a part of their bloc. Ukraine was no exception, and in fact was a center of much of the USSR’s military industrial base. As the years after the collapse went on U sank deeper into debt. Additionally, for many years Russia and Ukraine had been involved in an escalating dispute concerning the natural gas pipelines that traverse Ukraine from Russia into Europe. The dispute concerned transmission royalties, and promised supplies (to Ukraine) and from what I read, both sides acted in bad faith, and both sides waged a tit for tat campaign of retributions and accusations.

As 2014 approached, Ukraine’s situation became more dire and both Russia and the US/EU offered competing economic aid packages of approx. $15b. The then-president of Ukraine who was Moscow leaning decided to accept the Russian offer, the Maidan revolt erupted, he fled to Russia, and the fighting began. But there is much, much more to it than that. Despite assurances given to Russia by GHW Bush’s administration not to encroach on Russia’s security interests in Eastern Europe, it turns out those were empty assurances, and the US and NATO have steadily brought a military presence closer and closer to Russia’s borders. How would the US react if Russia or China established major military presences in Canada or Mexico? With a lot less restraint, I believe, than Russia has. The US sensed in 2014 that the time was ripe to remove Ukraine from Russia’s sphere of influence, and bring them firmly into our own, and our state department helped foment the Maidan revolt/coup.

And here’s another piece of the puzzle. I found in 2014 a report of the US DOE, prepared at the direction of the Obama administration that addressed the question - will the liquification and overseas sale of US frac gas increase GHG emissions? It was intended to be a “cradle to grave” analysis of all contributing sources of emissions associated with that effort. Though I have a technical engineering background I could not myself verify the accuracy of the estimates of the contributing factors of that study. We know that in all probability that the contribution of escaped methane emissions is severely underestimated. The conclusion of the study was that it was a wash, no appreciable increase in emissions. But I concluded that the study was flawed because it assumed the “grave” to be the arrival of liquified gas at the ports of Rotterdam and Shanghai, and not the re-gasification, transmission and consumption of that product to the target markets. More importantly though I believed that the entire study asked the wrong question altogether. What should have been asked was- Can this effort reduce GHG emissions? And that answer is a resounding NO. But, the US government, whether accurately or not, went through the motions of due diligence.

So, what is the importance of this wrt Ukraine, Russia, and the US? With Ukraine “officially” at odds with Russia, those pipelines and Russia’s ability to sell its gas to Europe are in jeopardy. Hence Nordstream II and the southern routes that Russia is constructing to circumvent Ukraine and continue to sell its gas to Europe. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Russian natural gas and US frac gas are in direct competition for the European energy market. Trump is a veritable fount of ludicrous verbal pronouncements, but occasionally he says something that makes perfect sense. Recall several summers ago he travelled to Europe for a NATO summit and visited and promptly insulted just about every national leader there. This was the trip where he called Merkel a “Russian Puppet” for Germany’s involvement in Nordstream II. But I also recall him saying at that time: “Of course Putin promotes the interests of his country, and I, as US President, promote the interests of our nation. That is what national leaders are expected and required to do!”

I don’t know where you reside Tim, but I live in the heart of the Marcellus and Utica gas play. It was those sources the DOE report used as the starting point. For a time I was involved in this boom, our company helping to build a geospatially and legally accurate GIS of surface and subsurface resources and ownership. I knew nothing of fracking when we began, but because I always want to know to what end my professional efforts and expertise are serving, I immediately began digging into everything that was known at that time (2008.) I won’t go there at this time, but this is what I want to highlight. This gas energy boom was heavily promoted here by both the industry and the local and regional pols as ensuring US energy security for at least the next 100 years. Indeed it could, regardless of the environmental/climatological consequences. However, in our capital dependent and privatized economy the only way that such an effort proceeds is through a “boom” that is fueled by financial investment and speculation. Those investors and speculators expect a return and a profit and that gas makes no money unless and until it is sold. We already have on hand much more gas that we can consume domestically at this time, and so the effort to sell the gas overseas is a direct consequence of this capitalism prerogative.

In one of the few political science courses I took in college we studied the behavior of energy politics in the US. The history is clear that the US oil boom, which preceded the development in other parts of the world, resulted in the very quick depletion of most of the largest and easiest oil deposits in the US as we were the “arsenal of freedom” during WWI and WWII. We very quickly became, and remain to this day, an oil importing nation. This is what I fear will be the result of the effort to market this new energy resource around the world. It isn’t about energy security for the long-suffering citizens of the US, it is about continuing profits for the energy majors.

So what was Joe Biden and his dipshit son doing mucking around in energy speculation in Ukraine? A few more tidbits. In the several years before the denouement in Ukraine several large energy interests (Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon, and Chevron) signed joint development agreements with various entities in Ukraine to develop shale-bound gas in NW Ukraine and in the Donbass. When the fighting began those agreements were vacated. I found a map of the known extent of the shalegas deposit in the Donbass: it almost exactly overlays those areas under control of the Russian separatists. Those sneaky, dastardly Russians! And, touché! US State Dept.

I believe the piece that Hugo mentioned by Cockburn specifically addressed the decline in US global leadership, and not the decline of US infrastructure, technological innovation, and domestic social cohesion or consensus. So here is the conclusion of my long explanation. Humanity must act decisively to prevent what could be a climate collapse. The US, either under the open refusal of the Republicans, or the duplicitous lip-service-only of the Democrats, refuses to lead. If we’re going to pick which “ism” is going to result in “The End of History” I would say that it will be denialism.

I watched Biden’s TV interview on Sunday and he did indeed seem coherent and alert. Distinctly different to other occasions I’ve watched him. At 67 I have good days and bad days, some mornings I have trouble recalling much-used words or names. His confused episodes seem to coincide with the rigors of campaigning, and that supports my contention. However, I’d like to remove this contentious issue from the argument. Even if he were 20 years younger, and sharp as a tack, I would not support him because he has seldom if ever in his long political career supported positions or efforts that I support, or opposed those US policy actions which I oppose. More of the same duopoly dance: heads they win, tails we lose.